Changement climatique : en route pour Copenhague[en] 

Scientists across the world have been stepping up their warnings on climate change, saying glaciers are melting faster than expected, sea levels are rising more rapidly than ever and water supplies are drying up fast (EurActiv 13/03/09). 

But despite these warnings, world governments are still struggling to come up with a coordinated global response.  

The biggest challenge is probably to find a way of sharing global emissions reductions between rapidly developing countries, like China and India, and more industrialised regions, like the US and Europe, which are responsible for the bulk of historical CO2 emissions. 

However, bridging those views will be anything but easy, as decisions by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have to be taken unanimously. 

More than 190 government representatives agreed in December 2007 to work out a climate treaty by the end of 2009. 

The United Nations Climate Change conference will be the 15th UN Conference of the Parties (COP) and represents the last stage in global talks, launched in December 2007 in Bali, to clinch a deal on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. 

Any new deal would need to come into force before January 2013 (see EurActiv LinksDossier on 'Global options for tackling climate change'). 

Picking up from Poznań 

Last winter's UN climate conference in Poznań, a key milestone between Bali and Copenhagen, only agreed upon a work programme for 2009, which calls for a negotiating document to be drawn up by June 2009. 

Delegates also made progress on technical details, including how to measure deforestation and the principles of putting up an international fund to help poor and vulnerable countries to cope with the impacts of global warming (rising seas, floods, droughts, storms and wildfires). 

However, key issues such as long-term goals for slashing emissions and avoiding dangerous climate change impacts, as well as the introduction of a technology-transfer mechanism to allow developing countries to move towards low-carbon economies, were left untouched. 

Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said the Copenhagen conference may not yield a new global climate treaty in every detail, but said he was hopeful that agreement could be reached on four fundamental issues: 

• How far industrialised countries are prepared to cut emissions to satisfy the need to agree on "ambitious, legally-binding emissions reduction targets"; 
• How far major developing countries, namely China, India and Brazil, are prepared to limit the growth of their own emissions; 
• Financing clean technology and adaptation efforts in developing countries through international cooperation, and; 
• Reforming governance structures of the UNFCCC so as give more representation to developing nations. 

Finding convergence on emission cuts 

Industrialised countries are under pressure to agree on specific targets to cut greenhouse emissions by 2020. 

The EU, which has already committed to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, has pledged to raise the target to 30% if other industrialised countries commit to similar reductions, namely the US. 

US President Barack Obama is committed to reducing US emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, but scientists and European governments insist that larger cuts are needed. Obama himself, meanwhile, has suggested that the US could compensate with swifter reductions in the years beyond 2020, and his recent budget proposal calls for a US emissions reduction of roughly 80% by 2050 (2005 levels). 

Other industrialised countries like Japan, Ukraine, Switzerland and Russia still have to make an offer. 

For all industrialised countries, however, and particularly the US, it will be difficult to agree on reduction targets unless their citizens see that major developing countries are also willing to engage further. 

Developing nations, on the other hand, point out that industrialised economies are mainly responsible for climate change and should assume their responsibilities. They are also asking for financial assistance in adapting and mitigating the effects of global warming. 

European Commission proposal 

In a proposal tabled in January 2009, the European Commission stressed that action by the developed economies of the OECD would be insufficient on its own, because emissions in the developing world are growing rapidly and threaten to outweigh efforts by industrialised countries. 

The EU is thus proposing that developing countries - including China and India but with the exception of Africa's least-developed states - should slow their emission growth by 15-30% below business-as-usual levels by 2020 (EurActiv 29/01/09).  

During a meeting with a US delegation in Washington, Czech Environment Minister Martin Bursík, representing the EU presidency, stated: "It is evident that key developing countries such as China and India are waiting to see what the USA will do. It is thus extremely important that the USA not only shoulders a very good long-term obligation to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, but that it also has an objective for 2020 that is more ambitious than the currently declared emission reduction at the level for 1990, which would mean a 14% reduction as opposed to now." 

But how to divide the overall emissions cut target is still the subject of negotiation at UN level, and has so far divided EU member states.

In its proposal , the Commission suggested taking into account four criteria for calculating each country's contribution:

• GDP per capita;
• Emissions per unit of GDP;
• Emissions trends between 1990 and 2005, and;
• Population trends over the period 1990 to 2005. 

"The emission reduction efforts which are needed from the group of developed countries (25 to 40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels) should be distributed fairly and in a way which ensures comparability of efforts," said EU leaders at their spring summit  in March.

Towards a 'responsible green deal': Possible policy scenarios 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has identified possible policy scenarios to stabilise greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration at 550 and 450 parts per million (ppm) of CO2-equivalent, which would stabilise temperature rises to around 3°C and to 2°C respectively. 

These lower carbon scenarios would require a substantial shift in investment patterns and a major transformation of the way investment decisions in the energy sector are taken – requiring additional investment in power plants and more energy efficient energy-related capital stock. 

Such a greening of the energy system would require additional investment of USD 3.6 trillion in power plants and USD 5.7 trillion in energy efficiency during the period 2010-2030, in the 450 ppm scenario. These additional investments correspond to 0.55% of GDP per year, but they would also bring energy savings to consumers worth USD 5.8 trillion from 2010 to 2030. 

According to the IEA, OECD countries alone cannot put the world on a 450-ppm trajectory, even if they were to reduce their emissions to zero. 

While technological progress is needed to achieve certain emissions reductions, efficiency gains and the deployment of existing low-carbon energy accounts for most of the savings. According to the IEA, the power sector would need to undergo a dramatic change, with carbon capture and storage schemes (CCS; see EurActiv LinksDossier), and renewable and nuclear energy each playing a crucial role. 

The European Union and the United States are expected to provide financial aid to developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable ones, to help them adapt to climate change. 

At their March summit , EU leaders reiterated the commitments they had made, but failed to surmount internal disputes and honour a pledge to help poor states to tackle climate change, saying other rich regions should first commit to clear goals and pave the way for a successful deal. 

President Obama in balancing act 

The US administration has a decisive role to play in global negotiations. President Barack Obama has promised to set ambitious targets, but his aides have warned that he may be forced to delay the signature of a new international agreement due to the scale of opposition in the US Congress. 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave the White House a report at the end of March 2009 alleging that pollution tied to climate change could endanger human life. This discovery could give the government the authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act, according a US Supreme Court ruling dating from 2007. 

In the short term, the report's findings set the EPA on a collision course with US carmakers, coal-fired power plants and other businesses that rely on fossil fuels, which fear complex and costly rules. 

At the same time, President Obama and his aides have begun an aggressive push to get Congress to approve the US budget, which contains many of his campaign promises, including diversifying the nation's energy supply and focusing on green jobs. 

However, Obama is under political pressure from both parties to scale back his priorities, despite his insistence that the country had no alternative if it wanted to succeed. 

"Sometimes you have to fail before you can succeed," said the president. "And often it takes not just the commitment of an innovator, but the commitment of a country, to innovate," he added. 

Deal unrealistic by December? 

In this context, some analysts in Washington believe it is unrealistic to expect a new global deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol to be struck by December. At best, they believe a framework for a final agreement can be achieved. Obama meanwhile, experts say, will struggle to get everyone on board in his push for 'clean energy' legislation at home. 

Some optimists stress that half of US states have already adopted formal green-energy goals, and hope that by the end of the year, Washington will have launched its own carbon trading system. The cap-and-trade mechanism could be linked to the EU ETS and form the basis for a global carbon market for the post-2012 period. 

China, India, Brazil and Russia 

Meanwhile, China and India last year adopted their first national plans to tackle climate change, prioritising renewable energy sources. Considered among the world's biggest producers of greenhouse gases, they both refuse to accept binding targets for emissions, saying wealthy developed nations assume the bulk of responsibility for the problem. 

Brazil has instead focused its action on reducing deforestation. Its plan promises to make the country a more influential player in global climate change discussions, helping to push the United States and the European Union to agree to emissions cuts that should help head off the adverse effects of climate change. It could also encourage more pledges from wealthy countries seeking to essentially pay Brazil to preserve its forest for the good of humanity. 

Some believe, then, that the real challenge could be Russia, with experts fearing Moscow may be uncooperative in the negotiations. There is a widespread view in Moscow that the costs of even moderate climate change actions would be higher than the possible gains. Without a significant shift in the government's line, Russian negotiators are likely to argue for a compensation scheme in Copenhagen. 

Sir Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics, who authored the Stern report on the economics of climate change, said: "We have to make the agreement, which will guide the world economy after Kyoto. If we miss it, we will undermine confidence in the carbon markets, which will be of vital importance in getting this whole set of investments. So, 2009 is a vital year." 

"It's the opportunity to go for low-carbon growth. And we understand, roughly speaking, what technologies are needed. Some of them will be very quick, like insulating houses, promoting energy efficiency, and that will put unemployed construction workers back into work now, this year. Others, like bringing forward infrastructure investment, take a little longer. Others like R&D have a still further lead time," Stern said. 

EU Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potočnik said: "Getting an agreement is a win, not getting an agreement is a loss. Meaning that, everybody around the table has to understand that these negotiations will be difficult; that they will have to step into each other's shoes and try to understand what are their problems." 

"But I hope that the understanding from all is that we are actually living in the same world and have no choice, so we have to deal with climate change - and we have to deal with it now. It's a one-shot chance. If we miss this chance, we really don't know when there will be a second one with that level of opportunity. So, Copenhagen should be a success," Potočnik added. 

Michael Grubb, chief economist at the Carbon Trust, said: "The US system overall is going to be stretched. So, I think the idea that the US will ride in like a sort of white knight and save the situation is kind of a bit far-fetched. What it has done is it's reinvigorated the sense that at least the world's talking - that everybody's talking to each other - and, by and large, that all the major countries want to find solutions." 

"So, I think the biggest thing is for the US to officially say it will rejoin the global group of industrialised countries that set quantified caps post-2012 and that it will sign up to the majority of the architecture involved in that and to some of the mechanisms behind that, including some of the flexibility," he added. 

Nick Campbell, chair of the climate working group at Europe's business lobby group, BusinessEurope, said: "I must admit I'm starting to get frightened about the Copenhagen meeting." "I wonder how this is going to come together," he added, referring to the lack of detail in the EU's plans so far. 

"The EU has promised to do its share," Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told Reuters after the EU summit in March, underlining that it would go no further until other rich nations had unveiled their targets for cutting global warming gases. 

"It is obvious that in order to calculate the amound of funding for our contribution, we need to know what other developed countries will do," added Dimas.

Green MEP Claude Turmes added: "An uncompetitive Europe already lost out in the last industrial revolution when US companies mopped up the world IT innovation market. As the green-tech revolution enters full swing, we must match Obama's level of commitment, not stand by and admire his vision." 

Joris den Blanken, Greenpeace EU's climate and energy policy director, accused the EU of wasting three months until the June summit.

 "The EU has agreed it must repay its carbon debt, but developing nations are going to think twice about joining a global climate agreement without concrete financial commitments from rich countries. You cannot start negotiating about who should contribute what to tackle climate change unless there is money on the table," he said. 

Sonja Meister, a climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said the EU's inaction was now turning into deliberate blocking of progress. "Europe must start to pay its climate debts and come up with at least 35 billion euro now," she said. 

Stephan Singer, director of WWF's Global Energy Programme, said it was "time to re-state the fundamentals of a successful global climate deal in Copenhagen". "Strong EU leadership includes ambitious targets and funding. Unfortunately at the moment we are far from that," he added. 

Elise Ford, head of Oxfam International's EU office, accused the EU of double standards. "The EU says it will pay its fair share of adaptation monies needed by poor countries, but instead of putting numbers down and building trust, it's using the issue as a bargaining chip. This is just another example of the EU back-pedalling on the fragile agreement struck in Bali, where rich countries agreed to action on adequate and predictable financial resources," she said.

The American Chamber of Commerce to the EU (AmCham EU) sees the EU-US relationship as key in the negotiations. AmCham believes that agreement should be based on harmonised, market-based systems incorporating regulatory frameworks that provide incentives for the development of new technologies and take into account cost and competitiveness issues. 

John Vassallo, Microsoft, Chair of AmCham EU said, “ If the international community is ultimately to be successful in meeting the challenge of global climate change, partnership and co-operation between the US and EU will be crucial. We therefore heartily endorse what the EU is doing to to reach out to the US administration on climate change, including its proposal for a EU-US working group on carbon markets."